Dataset Information

Check the Need-Prevalence and Outcome after Transvenous Cardiac Implantable Electric Device Extraction without Reimplantation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

after transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of cardiac implantable electric devices (CIEDs), some patients may not benefit from device reimplantation. This study sought to analyse predictors and long-term outcome of patients after TLE with vs. without reimplantation in a high-volume centre.

Methods

all patients undergoing TLE at our centre between January 2010 and November 2015 were included into this analysis.

Results

a total of 223 patients (median age 70 years, 22.0% female) were included into the study. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) was the most common device (40.4%) followed by pacemaker (PM) (31.4%), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (26.9%), and cardiac resynchronization therapy-PM (CRT-P) (1.4%). TLE was performed due to infection (55.6%), malfunction (35.9%), system upgrade (6.7%) or other causes (1.8%). In 14.8%, no reimplantation was performed after TLE. At a median follow-up of 41 months, no preventable arrhythmia-related events were documented in the no-reimplantation group, but 11.8% received a new CIED after 17-84 months. While there was no difference in short-term survival, five-year survival was significantly lower in the no-reimplantation group (78.3% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.014).

Conclusions

in patients undergoing TLE, a re-evaluation of the indication for reimplantation is safe and effective. Reimplantation was not related to preventable arrhythmia events, but all-cause survival was lower.

SUBMITTER: D'Angelo G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8467543 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Implantable device leads can cause tricuspid regurgitation (TR) when they interfere with leaflet motion. The aim of this study was to determine whether lead-leaflet interference is associated with TR severity, independent of other causative factors of functional TR.A total of 100 patients who underwent transthoracic two-dimensional and three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography of the tricuspid valve before and after lead placement were studied. Lead position was classified on 3D echocardiography as leaflet-interfering or noninterfering. TR severity was estimated by vena contracta (VC) width. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with postdevice TR, including predevice VC width, right ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic areas, fractional area change, right atrial size, tricuspid annular diameter, TR gradient, device lead age, and presence or absence of lead interference. Odds ratios were used to describe the association with moderate (VC width ? 0.5 cm) or severe (VC width ? 0.7 cm) TR, separately, using bivariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis.Forty-five of 100 patients showed device lead tricuspid valve leaflet interference. The septal leaflet was the most commonly affected (23 patients). On bivariate analysis, preimplantation VC width, right atrial size, tricuspid annular diameter, and lead-leaflet interference were significantly associated with postdevice TR. On multivariate analysis, preimplantation VC width and the presence of an interfering lead were independently associated with postdevice TR. Furthermore, the presence of an interfering lead was the only factor associated with TR worsening, increasing the likelihood of developing moderate or severe TR by 15- and 11-fold, respectively.Lead-leaflet interference as seen on 3D echocardiography is associated with TR after device lead placement, suggesting that 3D echocardiography should be used to assess for lead interference in patients with significant TR.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Initial management of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection requires removal of the infected CIED system and treatment with systemic antibiotics. However, the optimal timing to device reimplantation is unknown. The aim of this study was to quantify the incidence of reinfection after initial management of CIED infection, and to assess the effect of timing to reimplantation on reinfection rates. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. INTERVENTIONS:A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of studies published up to February 2018. Inclusion criteria were: (a) documented CIED infection, (b) studies that reported the timing to device reimplantation and (c) studies that reported the proportion of participants with device reinfection. A meta-analysis of proportions using a random effects model was performed to estimate the pooled device reinfection rate. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure was the rate of CIED reinfection. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS:Of the 280 screened studies, 8 met inclusion criteria with an average of 96 participants per study (range 15-220 participants). The pooled incidence rate of device reinfection was 0.45% (95% CI, 0.02% to 1.23%) per person year. A longer time to device reimplantation >72 hours was associated with a trend towards higher rates of reinfection (unadjusted incident rate ratio 4.8; 95% CI 0.9 to 24.3, p=0.06); however, the meta-regression analysis was unable to adjust for important clinical covariates. There did not appear to be a difference in reinfection rates when time to reimplantation was stratified at 1 week. Heterogeneity was moderate (I2=61%). CONCLUSIONS:The incident rate of reinfection following initial management of CIED infection is not insignificant. Time to reimplantation may affect subsequent rates of device reinfection. Our findings are considered exploratory and significant heterogeneity limits interpretation. PROSERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD4201810960.